In a column that blends satire with geopolitical concern, economist William Watson suggests a straightforward, if cynical, solution to a potential international crisis: just give Donald Trump the Nobel Peace Prize. The provocative argument stems from recent reports that the former and possibly future U.S. president linked his hostile interest in acquiring Greenland to his failure to win the prestigious award.
The Greenland Gambit and Nobel Grudge
Watson recounts the initial disbelief that any world leader would openly admit such a motive. The report claimed Trump told Norway's prime minister that his pursuit of Greenland was partly because, lacking a Nobel Peace Prize, he felt less constrained by peacekeeping concerns—though he still ostensibly favours peace. Watson notes that while most people filter their wilder thoughts, this president has a well-documented history of vocalizing the contents of his "intricately gilded psyche."
The columnist draws a comparison to Barack Obama, who received the prize in 2009 after only a year in office, largely on the basis of speeches and global relief that he wasn't George W. Bush. In contrast, Watson wryly observes that Trump's actual peace credentials, however self-exaggerated, are arguably more substantial, fueling what he calls Trump's "Obama Derangement Syndrome." The perceived snub from the "sophisticated European globalists" on the Nobel committee seems to have left the prize as a glaring omission on Trump's desired list of accolades.
A Price for Peace: The Billion-Dollar Board
Watson's proposal to simply award the prize takes on a darker humour when considering other reported plans. He references the idea of Trump appointing Vladimir Putin to a Middle East "Board of Peace," a move he likens to the UN once placing Gadhafi's Libya on its Human Rights Commission. Watson speculates that Putin's inclusion might be less about diplomacy and more about the reported US$1 billion membership fee, questioning if former Bank of Canada governor Mark Carney would be tapped and whose money would be used.
Despite the absurdity, Watson's core argument is pragmatic: if the prize is what stands between stability and a chaotic, forced annexation of a sovereign nation's territory, then the committee should pay the ransom. "Just give the man the damn prize if he wants it so badly," he concludes, framing it as a cheap price for avoiding a major conflict.
Troop Movements and Northern Latitudes
The column then pivots to more tangible signs of trouble, analyzing reports of 1,500 U.S. troops being readied for potential deployment to Minnesota. Watson, with an economist's eye for data, notes their origin in Alaska and draws a striking parallel. The latitude of Fairbanks, Alaska (64.84°N) is nearly identical to that of Nuuk, Greenland (64.10°N).
He points out that soldiers stationed in Alaska would already be acclimatized to the extreme daylight cycles of a high-latitude invasion. With sunrise times and forecasted temperatures eerily similar between the two locations that January, Watson muses that the true destination might not be Minneapolis but Nuuk. He darkly jokes that Greenland's Prime Minister, Jens-Frederik Nielsen, should prepare to join Venezuelan leader Nicolás Maduro as a prisoner in New York.
In a final, pointed aside to Canadian readers, Watson observes that 1,500 troops could likely seize Ottawa, recalling how a convoy of trucks paralyzed the capital in 2022. He suggests this might be a reason for Canada to reconsider policies on civilian weaponry, ending his column on a note of implied vulnerability closer to home.
